logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.06 2017나20608
양수금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” means the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though he/she performed the duty of care generally required for conducting the litigation.

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant

(2) According to the records of this case, the court of first instance, upon receipt of a certified copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading by public notice, may recognize the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the trial on March 13, 2017, upon receipt of a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance court on November 10, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195, Nov. 10, 2005).

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case was filed within two weeks from the date on which the Defendant became aware that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice, and is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion

2. Facts of recognition;

A. B around June 5, 2004

arrow